MICHAEL REEVES, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Appellee

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 5th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » MICHAEL REEVES, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Appellee

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-07-00020-CV

Case Date: 11/09/2007

Plaintiff: MICHAEL REEVES, Appellant

Defendant: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Appellee

Preview:MICHAEL REEVES, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Appellee
AFFIRM and Opinion Filed November 8, 2007

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ............................ No. 05-07-00020-CV ............................ MICHAEL REEVES, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION, Appellee ............................................................. On Appeal from the 134th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 06-07707-G ............................................................. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Morris, Bridges, and O'Neill Opinion By Justice O'Neill This is a vexatious litigant case. Reeves, appearing pro se, asserts that the trial court erred when it dismissed his claims with prejudice after he failed to comply with the court's order declaring him a vexatious litigant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background. Reeves is no stranger to litigation. Since March of 2005, Reeves, proceeding pro se, has filed at least 23 lawsuits in various district courts of Dallas County. He has not prevailed in a single case and at least ten have been decided against him. He has been barred from filing actions in forma pauperis in the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining leave from the court because of the frivolous nature of his lawsuits and his refusal to pay monetary sanctions imposed on him by the federal courts. In the underlying suit, he sued the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Worker's Compensation ("TDI") alleging discrimination and defamation. His case appears to be based on injuries he allegedly sustained when his doctor's appointment for a worker's compensation claim was canceled. TDI responded to Reeves' petition by filing a motion to declare Reeves a vexatious litigant. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court signed an order finding that Reeves was a vexatious litigant and requiring Reeves to furnish security in cash or in the form of an executed bond for $500.00 by December 1, 2006. When Reeves failed to furnish the required security, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. We construe Reeves' notice of appeal to complain that the trial court erred when it declared him a vexatious litigant. Standard of Review.

file:///C|/TX/Folder%2001/05-07-00020-cv-5.html[7/20/2013 1:24:30 AM]

We review the trial court's determination that Harris was a vexatious litigant under an abuse of discretion standard. Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2006, pet. denied); Harris v. Rose, 204 S.W.3d 903, 906 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.); Nell Nations Forist v. Vanguard Underwriters Ins., Co., 141 S.W.3d 668, 670 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2004, no pet.). On an abuse of discretion challenge, we are not free to substitute our own judgment for the trial court's judgment. Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002). We can only find an abuse of discretion if the trial court "acts in an arbitrary or capricious manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998). The court's decision must be "so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law." BMC Software Belg. N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 801 (Tex. 2002). Applying these principles, we must determine whether the trial court's application of the vexatious litigant statute constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Vexatious Litigant Statute. Texas jurisprudence provides a mechanism for the restriction of frivolous and vexatious litigation. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

Download 05-07-00020-cv-5.pdf